The government is exploring plans to develop a large youth rental housing complex on approximately 300,000 square meters of the Yongsan Children's Garden in Seoul. As a state-owned site, it does not require land acquisition, and its urban accessibility is excellent. Industry estimates suggest that building high-density small housing units could provide up to 20,000 homes.
While the proposal sounds appealing, it is important to note that state-owned land is not free. Instead of paying for land acquisition, the government must sacrifice public assets such as parks, green spaces, and historical sites. Although the government mentions the figure of 20,000 units, it fails to explain the costs associated with this trade-off.
If Yongsan Park becomes a candidate site for housing, what will be next? Why not consider Seoul Forest? How long can spaces preserved for their memorial and commemorative value, like the National Cemetery, remain exempt from housing logic? If the relocation of Gimpo Airport becomes a reality, will that site also be filled with homes?
While the functions and legal characteristics of these areas differ, the government can change laws and urban planning as needed. Citizens are left wondering what the government prioritizes and where it will draw the line. The fear is straightforward: if the supply numbers are large enough, any place that serves as a foundation for our lives could lose its original value.
Parks are not just undeveloped land; they are spaces that sustain citizens' lives in their current state.
The process leading to this proposal is also unclear. On August 13, the government announced measures to secure additional housing supply for over 230,000 units in the metropolitan area, but Yongsan Children's Garden was not included. The following day, Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Kim Yun-deok mentioned the entire Yongsan Park as a potential housing site, and three days later, plans for a large rental complex for youth and newlyweds were revealed. A site that was not part of the supply measures quickly transformed into a 'card to resolve the housing crisis for those in their 20s and 30s.'
Yongsan Park is not suitable for rapid development. To build housing on the main site, changes to the Yongsan Park Creation Special Act and the comprehensive park master plan are necessary. Soil and groundwater investigations and remediation are also required, but the extent of contamination and the costs and duration of cleanup based on the assumption of residential conversion have not been disclosed.
Even the nearby Camp Kim, which was initially suitable for mixed-use development, has faced delays due to contamination cleanup and cultural heritage investigations. Although it was returned in December 2020, the goal for construction is set for 2029. Even if this timeline is met, it will take nine years before the first shovel hits the ground. Given that changes to special laws and park plans are needed, Yongsan Park is unlikely to serve as a quick solution to the current rental crisis. In the meantime, today's 20-somethings will become 30-somethings, and some will no longer qualify as youth under current policies.
Despite this, the government's proposal highlights 'Yongsan' and 'youth' while obscuring 'housing.' To fill 20,000 units, high-density small housing development is inevitable. If the government builds small homes densely under the pretext of providing good land for youth, it merely replicates existing youth housing.
It remains unclear whether these will be public rentals or privately supported rentals, and how rental prices and duration of residence will be determined. Will residents be able to move to larger homes upon marriage or having children? Will savings from reduced housing costs lead to homeownership? If residents must leave once they exceed a certain age, the complex will merely serve as a large temporary shelter rather than a true housing ladder.
If the government intends to build youth housing in Yongsan, it must first design the housing pathways. Rental prices should be set according to income, and residents should be able to transition to larger homes as their family situations change. There should also be mechanisms in place to ensure that savings during the rental period can lead to homeownership.
It is easy to say that many homes for youth will be built on good state-owned land. The challenge lies in determining what to preserve and what will remain for the youth who move into those homes. The government has yet to demonstrate a compelling reason to convert Yongsan Park into housing land or to present an appropriate model for youth housing. The name of youth should not serve as a pass to open the gates of the park.
What the government needs to address is not the figure of 20,000 units, but why this location is necessary, what will be preserved, and what the youth who move in will leave behind in ten years.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.